• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

US Company Gets Approval To Build The World's First Fusion Power Plant

S

sleepeeg3

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
5,815
What better to power all those datacenters than fusion? 50MW is tiny - this is a PoC. If they can demonstrate viability, it could have an enormous impact on the world. No more resource wars? It also paves the way for things like personal assistant Optimus robots so we can focus on cool things like space travel.
US-based fusion energy company Helion has received the regulatory clearances to build the world's first fusion energy powerplant

It also has an agreement in place with Microsoft to supply 50 MW of power to a data center from its fusion reactor by 2028.
As a nuclear energy company, Helion should ideally be seeking approval from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). However, the NRC regulates nuclear fusion under the byproduct material framework, putting it in the same category for approvals as particle accelerators and hospitals, instead of nuclear reactors.
This is not just a distinction made by the NRC but one also ratified by the US Congress in the ADVANCE Act of 2024, and it shows that nuclear fusion has a very different safety profile from fission and hence its path to deploymentis also different.
The issuance of the RML and RAELlicenses by the Washington DOH is a major milestone for Helion as it confirms that it has facilities, personnel, and safety programs that meet the safety standards for a fusion facility at the Malaga site.
Click to expand...
Video of Helion's technology.
 
Last edited:
fun-this-is-where-the-fun-begins.gif
 
I'll believe it when I see it.

I was on a flight in the late 90's from Paris to Tokyo sitting next to the lead of a Fusion project (I don't recall which) and he was telling me it was less than 10 years out. I'm still waiting, but will be impressed if someone has finally made it work in an economical way.
 
zehoo said:
I'll believe it when I see it.

I was on a flight in the late 90's from Paris to Tokyo sitting next to the lead of a Fusion project (I don't recall which) and he was telling me it was less than 10 years out. I'm still waiting, but will be impressed if someone has finally made it work in an economical way.
Click to expand...

The old joke was that Fusion was constantly 30 years away, but that might be changing.

Helion has put their money where their mouths are. They have entered into legally binding contracts to supply Microsoft with a substantial amount of power from their Fusion reactors by 2028 (If memory serves). If they don't make it, they are in serious trouble.

Similarly Commonwealth fusion is building their own scale reactor in Devens, MA right now which if memory serves is supposed to go live and achieve net energy production early next year.

They are both interesting technologies.

Helion is the more ambitious one. They use direct electric generation utilizing the magnetic compression from the fusion reaction to make power, meaning their reactors are in theory going to be much smaller and much cheaper. It's riskier though as no one has done this before.

Commonwealth Fusion Systems (CFS) is the more conservative approach. They plan on generating power by using the fusion reactions heat to drive a steam turbine, like a more traditional plant. This is a more tried technology, but requires a shitload more infrastructure to work.

It will be interesting to see if either wind up working as they hope, and who winds up taking the lead if they do.

The thing is, this is not the fusion research of old, sponsored by research grants. Both Helion and CFS have serious money behind them from real investors who believe they can succeed. So I really do think it is different this time.

Helion is the truly exciting one. If they are successful, their direct generation technology is very compact, and they are planning on building fully contained fusion power plants into 40ft shipping containers which can be mass produced. The challenge is that their technology depends on Helium3 as a fuel source, which can be more challenging to come by.

CFS is not only playing it more safe with how they generate power (requiring a large plant with steam turbines) but they are also playing it more safe with fuel since they use a Deuterium-Tritium cycle.

I'd argue that CFS has a greater chance of success, since there are fewer unknowns, but if they succeed, expansion will be slower due to the massive infrastructure it takes to build a working plant. Helion probably has a lower chance of success, but if they do succeed it is really exciting due to the potential of mass production of fusion power containers.

So, yeah, Fusion has continually been 30 years away for the last 70 years, but this time might actually be different.
 
The only thing they are fusing is the steel piping joints to carry the steam from fission reactors. Fusion is a myth.
 
zehoo said:
I'll believe it when I see it.

I was on a flight in the late 90's from Paris to Tokyo sitting next to the lead of a Fusion project (I don't recall which) and he was telling me it was less than 10 years out. I'm still waiting, but will be impressed if someone has finally made it work in an economical way.
Click to expand...

I remember reading a National Geographic magazine from the 70s about fusion saying it was 30 years away.
 
I watched a video a week or two ago, probably about the same company. I thought it was pretty convincing, but obviously the real proof will be when they go full scale.

They tested one section of their containment to failure, and they liked what they saw. Well that's what they're saying, anyway. It's using a higher temperature superconductor, so they don't have to cool it as much, and they have more headroom, so that gives them a leg up on older designs already.
 
What I have noticed with electrical systems that are purely electronic based, is that they have a hard time absorbing sudden surges in the system. Where as traditional systems that have something with large mass in the chain, like a turbine, the turbine acts a flywheel that can absorb the transients. Wonder if their direct fusion system can handle the transients.

This is usually in regards to maintaining the AC sinewave though, I believe. If they are outputting straight DC then maybe not as much as issue.
 
Fusion is making progress, but we've underestimated how difficult it really is (at least, up until recently). It's something that only really happens naturally in stars — replicating that in a much smaller machine is no mean feat, even when we've produced nuclear fission.
 
Aurelius said:
Fusion is making progress, but we've underestimated how difficult it really is (at least, up until recently). It's something that only really happens naturally in stars — replicating that in a much smaller machine is no mean feat, even when we've produced nuclear fission.
Click to expand...

People read "hotter than the surface of the sun" and they get all excited. The good shit happens way down inside and the sun is 99+% of the total mass of our solar system.

This is not an easy process to maintain.

Edit: I think the sun might even be 99.9% of our solar system's total mass.
 
Nobu said:
I watched a video a week or two ago, probably about the same company. I thought it was pretty convincing, but obviously the real proof will be when they go full scale.

They tested one section of their containment to failure, and they liked what they saw. Well that's what they're saying, anyway. It's using a higher temperature superconductor, so they don't have to cool it as much, and they have more headroom, so that gives them a leg up on older designs already.
Click to expand...
Ah, wasn't this company, it was CFS (Commonwealth Fusion Systems)

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=isqK8RyTnCs&pp=ygUKRnVzaW9uIGNmc9IHCQlAAqO1ajebQw%3D%3D
 
Last edited:
zehoo said:
, but will be impressed if someone has finally made it work in an economical way.
Click to expand...
I'll just be impressed if someone has made it work in such a way that extracts more energy than is put in to run it.

edit: I see getting approval to build it is nothing more than a veiled attempt to extract more VC funding.
 
Last edited:
sc5mu93 said:
Sam Altman said AI would cure cancer. Why can't they just use AI to solve this and fire all the slow ass physists? It's like the physists didn't even WANT to solve fusion they are so slow.
Click to expand...

To be fair, AI has been extremely useful as an aid for medical professionals. Don't even ask Sam Altman about it, just talk to an X-Ray or MRI tech.
 
Something about Fusion at MIT recently, and in France........AI something-something helping to keep the plasma bubble intact by manipulating the magnetic field, something they needed an AI to control and maintain in real time..........no seriously.
d1c5c47d70b79c33c6313c040f4ac413e5e0cd9e14f44ca02f.jpg
 
Most fusion projects have restrictive clearances, and they don't provide any control experiment data, such as composition of the fuel before and after delivering heat (they use lasers afaik). Even if they did, it wouldn't be valid, since equipment audits are not allowed. Thus the validity of fusion is a dogmatic belief. Another belief that fusion proponents promote is that the light and heat of the sun are produced by fusion. A few hundred years ago, people compared the sun to a fire, but once combustion was understood as a combination of a reductant and an oxidant, it was clear that it wasn't happening on the surface of the sun due to spectral analysis of the sunlight, which revealed that the solar atmosphere is mostly hydrogen and helium. Helium is extremely inert, and cannot react with hydrogen. It was decided that hydrogen must react with itself to form helium. This process requires such enormous temperatures that no equipment can possibly test it. The temperature of the sun's atmosphere was calculated based on the black body radiance theory, and only measured a few thousand degrees. Fusion theories then assumed that fusion happened deep inside the sun where any measurements are conveniently not possible. The sunspots look like holes in the solar atmosphere, and they're dark, so it'd make more sense for the sun to have a colder solid surface. What could be causing the light and the heat then? The simplest explanation is plasma discharge powered by ionic currents in space (Birkeland currents). While this could also be wrong, it's easy to replicate with relatively inexpensive equipment.

There were many charlatans who pushed cold fusion, and they unintentionally helped, since they also promoted the general fusion dogma. It looks like many people are very skeptical of hot fusion these days too, but most of them still accept the solar fusion explanation, since it's taught in schools, and must be a fact.
 
stuffmonger said:
Most fusion projects have restrictive clearances, and they don't provide any control experiment data, such as composition of the fuel before and after delivering heat (they use lasers afaik). Even if they did, it wouldn't be valid, since equipment audits are not allowed. Thus the validity of fusion is a dogmatic belief. Another belief that fusion proponents promote is that the light and heat of the sun are produced by fusion. A few hundred years ago, people compared the sun to a fire, but once combustion was understood as a combination of a reductant and an oxidant, it was clear that it wasn't happening on the surface of the sun due to spectral analysis of the sunlight, which revealed that the solar atmosphere is mostly hydrogen and helium. Helium is extremely inert, and cannot react with hydrogen. It was decided that hydrogen must react with itself to form helium. This process requires such enormous temperatures that no equipment can possibly test it. The temperature of the sun's atmosphere was calculated based on the black body radiance theory, and only measured a few thousand degrees. Fusion theories then assumed that fusion happened deep inside the sun where any measurements are conveniently not possible. The sunspots look like holes in the solar atmosphere, and they're dark, so it'd make more sense for the sun to have a colder solid surface. What could be causing the light and the heat then? The simplest explanation is plasma discharge powered by ionic currents in space (Birkeland currents). While this could also be wrong, it's easy to replicate with relatively inexpensive equipment.

There were many charlatans who pushed cold fusion, and they unintentionally helped, since they also promoted the general fusion dogma. It looks like many people are very skeptical of hot fusion these days too, but most of them still accept the solar fusion explanation, since it's taught in schools, and must be a fact.
Click to expand...

Talking about validity as (yourself apparently) a proponent of the electric universe theory when SAFIRE has never published methodology/raw experimental data/physics findings to be peer reviewed, certainly is a take. They've only had over a decade to do it (and still haven't).
 
kram182 said:
Talking about validity as (yourself apparently) a proponent of the electric universe theory when SAFIRE has never published methodology/raw experimental data/physics findings to be peer reviewed, certainly is a take. They've only had over a decade to do it (and still haven't).
Click to expand...
I'm not a proponent of the electric universe theory. Apparently, you're wrong :) . The SAFIRE crowd focus too much on space phenomena, which cannot be measured and studied effectively. I also don't like them treating mythology as evidence, although it is entertaining. I don't care which one is right or wrong, since there is no way of determining it. It's a false dichotomy between 2 dogmas.
What matters more is whether or not fusion tech will be deployed at scale, by which I mean close to 100% of the electricity supply. Let's make it simpler. How much would you bet on polymarket that fusion tech will supply 50% of electricity within 20 years?
 
stuffmonger said:
I'm not a proponent of the electric universe theory. Apparently, you're wrong :) .
Click to expand...

You just believe 'plasma discharge from Birkeland currents', in your own words, to explain the sun, the core of the electric universe theory, along with all the other false things you said that EU believers also say/believe. My bad lol.

forgot-about-that-willem-dafoe.gif


stuffmonger said:
How much would you bet on polymarket that fusion tech will supply 50% of electricity within 20 years?
Click to expand...

Let's see how what's described in the OP goes first. We can keep it even simpler - how much do you have on Polymarket that what's in the OP won't come to pass at all/will fail?

Edit: And G.R. and Newtonian Gravity and star evolution + fusion core have much more provided experimental + peer reviewed data supporting them than anything you said.
 
Last edited:
kram182 said:
You just believe 'plasma discharge from Birkeland currents', in your own words, to explain the sun, the core of the electric universe theory, along with all the other false things you said that EU believers also say/believe. My bad lol.
Click to expand...
I said that it's the simplest explanation. I didn't say I believed it. It's irrelevant if I said false things, since I made no claims of them being true or false.

kram182 said:
how much do you have on Polymarket that what's in the OP won't come to pass at all/will fail?
Click to expand...
There's no market for Helion working or not. I'd bet a few hundred against it if you create it. Easy money money for you and Toucan Sam, eh?
kram182 said:
Edit: And G.R. and Newtonian Gravity and star evolution + fusion core have much more provided experimental + peer reviewed data supporting them than anything you said.
Click to expand...
How many star cores have been measured? Zero. You're right all properties of an empty set are true.
 
stuffmonger said:
It's irrelevant if I said false things, since I made no claims of them being true or false.
Click to expand...

What did you say them for then? It leads credence (or takes away) from everything else you say.

stuffmonger said:
How many star cores have been measured? Zero. You're right all properties of an empty set are true.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helioseismology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_neutrino

This is more verifiable evidence than for anything you've claimed

stuffmonger said:
There's no market for Helion working or not. I'd bet a few hundred against it if you create it. Easy money money for you and Toucan Sam, eh?
Click to expand...

Why do you need me to create it? Go get that money man!
 
stuffmonger said:
I'm not a proponent of the electric universe theory. Apparently, you're wrong :) . The SAFIRE crowd focus too much on space phenomena, which cannot be measured and studied effectively.
Click to expand...
The thing about astronomy is that most of the crap they claim can never be proven. How do we now how old the universe is? How do we know there's dark matter? How do we know there's been a big bang? When it comes right down to it, they kinda just make it up and try to make the math work. When they see something that contradicts their model, they make up more bullshit to fix their model. I would take a lot of what astronomers say with a grain of salt.
What matters more is whether or not fusion tech will be deployed at scale, by which I mean close to 100% of the electricity supply. Let's make it simpler. How much would you bet on polymarket that fusion tech will supply 50% of electricity within 20 years?
Click to expand...
I would 100% bet against fusion tech ever working. Assuming that stars do make fusion in their cores, then they have the perfect environment to do it. Lots of crushing force from gravity, along with insane pressures and zero disregard of what happens around it. While we're trying to make slightly more heat than the energy we put into it, while not melting everything around the fusion reaction. What's worse is now idiots think AI can make fusion work, as if AI works that way.
 
DukenukemX said:
The thing about astronomy is that most of the crap they claim can never be proven. How do we now how old the universe is? How do we know there's dark matter? How do we know there's been a big bang? When it comes right down to it, they kinda just make it up and try to make the math work. When they see something that contradicts their model, they make up more bullshit to fix their model. I would take a lot of what astronomers say with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's called the scientific method. You see something, you come up with a model for how it works, and then when any evidence comes up to dispute your model... guess what... you try to fix your model to make it work with new evidence. You could really make this same statement with any scientific discipline, just change the phrases. You really should stay in your lane on this one.
 
2034? That's pretty aggressive. And, as I alluded to, it might actually be easier to launch a probe that will sit on the Sun's "surface", deploy a rover, take selfies and then return to Earth.

All of that makes building a (death trap) Moon base very easy btw.

So again, 2034? To me it implies many years of having a Moon base, and to me, implies that "walking on the Sun" is something we've achieved.

I'm thinking this probably goes into the next century. But, we may learn many things from now until 2034. I'd just be surprised if we have workable fusion reactors in our grids before 2134. But, we'll see.
 
Ah yes, I was just discussing this the other day.
Once a power source like this is commercialized perfected, this will lead to the next step in the dark cyberpunk future in the 2030s and 2040s, megastructures. :borg::aborg:

It's going to happen, and sooner than we think:
mega1.png


How? 3D printers can do wonders on a large scale, and yes, this is already a real thing as far back as 2019, with some only needing 140 hours to completion:
mega2.png


I mean, look at the Renraku arcology:
mega3.png


Here's the size of this relative to Seattle:
mega4.png


But that's way too big, nothing that large and technological like that would ever be built, right?
mega5.png


With fusion, something like this is going to be a lot more cost efficient than with nuclear in mind:
mega6.png


Here is Meta's Hyperion AI data center, set to be built by 2028, relative to Manhattan:
mega7.png



Here's another fun one for you of life imitating art:
AI_tent1.png

AI_tent2.png

F1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTppbWFnZS5vcGVyYXRpb25zIl19.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top